header-logo header-logo

29 January 2014
Issue: 7592 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Boris in bus-ad ban storm

Questions over Mayor’s link to TfL’s ban of controversial bus advert

The Court of Appeal has ordered the High Court to investigate whether the Mayor of London intervened to pull controversial gay-“cure” bus adverts.

The proposed adverts, by Christian charity The Core Issues Trust read “Not Gay! Ex-Gay, Post-Gay and Proud, Get Over It”, and were intended as a response to the Stonewall bus adverts, “Some people are gay. Get over it!”

The charity, which supports those who want to “cure” their homosexuality, accused Mayor Boris Johnson of intervening in the decision for political reasons, which would make the decision unlawful. Johnson was due to speak at a hustings organised by gay rights group Stonewall on the day the adverts were blocked. The High Court upheld the ban.

However, Lord Dyson, in the Court of Appeal, pointed to new evidence of an e-mail which “unequivocally” states the Mayor had “instructed” Transport for London (TfL) to ban the advert, and shows the Mayor’s aides immediately contacted The Guardian newspaper. TfL said it had taken the decision to ban the adverts, regardless.

Lord Dyson, giving his decision in R (Core Issues Trust) v TfL [2014] EWCA Civ 34, said: “This is a very unsatisfactory state of affairs.”

However, he said TfL were entitled to ban the adverts. “The restrictions are justified in view of the prominence of the advertisements and the fact that they would be seen by, and cause offence to, large numbers of the public in central London,” he said.

“Moreover, for those who are gay, the advertisements would be liable to interfere with the right to respect for their private life under Art 8(1).”

He said that to allow the adverts would “involve a breach of [TfL’s] duty to have due regard to the s 149(1) [of the Equality Act] considerations and encourage homophobia and put homosexuals at risk”.

 

Issue: 7592 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll